Nikon 80-400mm VR, Sigma 150-500mm or TC on 70-200 2.8

I am looking at getting a longer zoom lens for wildlife and wondered if any of the folks on this list had used either of these lenses and their opinion of them. Also - I don't do a lot of longer range shots, so thinking maybe just adding a 1.4 or 1.7 TC to a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 lens might work for my needs?

I have used the Nikon 80-400mm VR before but didn't care for the way it "hunted" when in auto-focus, and seemed soft in image sharpness after 300mm.

By the way, the lens I will be using the lens on a Nikon D300.

Thanks for the input!

Marcy actually I have the 150-500 os of Sigma and the 80-400 vr nikon but to be quite honest with you I bought a 300mmf4 nikon and I must tell you I think it is probably one of the very best lenses on the market today.I use it with a 1.4 or 1.7 or 2.0 the lens has an incredible macro on it that with a close up ring you can get incredible macro shots.
The sigma is a nice lens works very well but after the 300 mm it doesnt have the nikon sharpness.The 80-400 is excellent IMHO except for the slow focus and have found no sharpness problems at any range.
The 70-200 f2.8 is a top quality lens a little on the heavy side but quick focus and tack sharp..
GOOD LUCK

Marcy, don't dismiss the other Sigma lens - the 50-500. It is sharp, particularly when stopped down to F8, and is quite versatile since it goes down to 50mm. I really question the need of a 400 or 500 mm lens with VR or OS, since you are likely to put it on a tripod rather than hand-hold it. If you are shooting nature subjects, often they will be moving which will negate the advantage of stabilization. I have gotten some really impressive results with my 50-500 which you can see here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9961692@N04/

Most of the bird shots were done with a gimbal head, the Bogen/Manfrotto 393 mounted on a Feisol CT3472, others were taken using an Arca/Swiss Z1 ballhead. In either case, I took the usual precautions to dampen any camera-borne vibrations.

The 300 F4 is a phenomenal lens, and the 300 2.8 even more so. If you are thinking using a converter, the 1.4 is a good option, the 1.7 less so, and I would only use a 2.0 if I had no other choice.

Problem with all of these solutions is that there is no really cheap one. If you understand the characteristics of the 50-500 you can still get good results in good light. Softness at 500, which is often cited as a reason for not buying it, is usually a result of insufficient support and/or bad technique. It has decent focusing speed - I often use it to shoot equestrian events, soccer, lacrosse, birds in flight - on a D200 which has a decent focusing system, but no match for the accuracy and speed of the D300's.

If you have to have a lens that you can shoot at an effective F4 or 5.6 at around 500mm, then neither Sigma will work. F6.3 is the max aperture, and for quality results, F8 is much, much better.

One last thing. Sigma factory QC has been an issue in the past. If you are in the US, the solution is simple. They come with a 5 yr warranty, and if you suspect that your lens is not performing as expected, Sigma is excellent about correcting it. I live near the Sigma headquarters on Long Island NY, and I have actually had a lens repaired while I waited on more than one occasion. If you send it in, the turnaround is usually less than a week at their facility. I have three of their lenses - the 10-20 mm, 50-500, and their 150 macro - and given that I bought all of these used and spent only $1500, I can say without a single doubt, I am incredibly happy with my purchases and the results I get with them - especially considering that the alternatives could have easily cost me 3 to 4 times as much.

Hi Avi

Thanks for the comments - appreciate your taking time to reply. Thanks also for the info on the 300mm f4 may have to check into that. I don't really do a lot of wildlife shooting, but would like to have something I can use when the unexpected comes up (like an unplanned trip to Denali during a fire assignment one summer).

Thanks again,

Marcy

Hi Gene
Thanks so much for all the info - and as far as Sigma goes, I had thought about looking into both the 50-500mm and the 150-500, but because of all the quality control issues I've heard about and the fact I don't live anywhere near a repair facility, I've shied away from them. I do have a friend that give workshops to various places around the world who just sold her 80-400mm because of focus problems and sharpness issues, and last week bought the 150-500mm. She likes it so far but hasn't really had time to put it through it's paces.
I currently have a fair selection of high quality Nikon lenses in a variety of focal lengths, but also have a 70-300mm that has served me well for many years. This particular lens was never a high quality one and it's time to replace it with some good glass to match the rest of the lenses in my camera bag.
Thanks for the information and suggestions, and may have to take a look at the Sigma and see how they compare to the Nikons. I'm just worried about getting a "problem child" since I do not have the time to mess with returning lenses nor am I close to any repair facility.

Appreciate your time and your input,
..Marcy

Wow, Gene - after checking out your website, I must say - I will have to give the "Bigma" 50-500mm a closer look! Wonderful images and the sharpness appears to be pretty darned good at the long end!

Thanks for the tip and nice job on the bird images!


....Marcy

Marcy, I've just been researching the same subject. Quick notes:
-The 80-400 Nikkor needs an update; otherwise its shortcomings (no internal motor, for one) don't justify its price. If it were $1000 instead of what it is, it would still be in the running.
-Tamron's 200-500 produces images as good as the Sigma 50-500; it's 44ox compared to the Bigma's 65 oz. (The Sigma 150-500 and 120-400--both with image stabilization--weigh 67 and 63 oz.) See Bob Atkins' review.
-The "Bigma" is pretty impressive. I had an 'open box' copy of one recently (it didn't autofocus, so I sent it back). I have a 500-mm reflex Nikkor from film days, and the Bigma produces better IQ, color, contrast (and bokeh if you don't like donut-shaped OOF highlights) with my D300. The photos taken by each show that the Bigma is noticeably shorter than the Nikkor, really about 470mm, but that's within the legal definition of "500 mm," and I wouldn't have noticed it had I not had identical images from each to compare.
-My having used the reflex Nikkor convinced me that I want a zoom's flexibility in framing, so I'm waiting for my Tamron to arrive. If I were less sure about wanting a zoom, I'd follow Avi's & Gene's suggestions about a Nikkor prime. If the Bigma I used for a little while weren't defective, I'd have kept it. I was able to handhold it at 500mm (leaning against the house for extra stability) and get a sharp image, but I'm sure my muscles wouldn't be up to managing another, and another, and another. So, rethinking, I let the comparable reviews for the Tamron plus its being one and three-quarter pounds lighter convince me, along with an equally good price on the lens.

--------------------------
p.s. Great Bronx-River-Parkway photos, Gene!

Hi Rosemarie,

Thanks for your observations! I haven't heard or read anything about the Tamron, might have to also check it out. I had the opportunity to pick up a very nice Nikon 80-400mm for around $1100 but remembering some of the issues I had with a previous one, just couldn't get myself to get another one.
I am pretty impressed by the photos I've seen with the Sigma 50-500mm but all the reviews I've read on Sigma's QC issues gives me pause to think about dealing with that problem.
Never owned a Tamron, so don't know much about them. I am adding a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 to my arsenal, and may look at the Tamron and the Sigma for the extra "boost" I need without the high price for a longer lens that covers to 500mm for when I need the length for wildlife.
If you live around KFalls, you have ample opportunity for lots of great bird photography! I used to live in KF and also the big city of Dorris (CA).

Thanks again for the reply to my post,

Marcy

Marcy your mind is probably spinning,The 50-500 is great Ihave used it for a long time but had a few small problems like DUST inside the lens and after a couple of years it starts to become a little loose.
The 200-500 is NICE but not more than that.
Here is a shot with thenikon 300f4 + x2 tc see what you think.
I will post also with the other lenses

nikon 80-400 vr a little slow and noisy but sharp

sigma 150 -500 tripod

50-500 bigma tripod

Wow! Although all the lenses do a decent job, the Nikon 300 f4 is absolutely amazing!!!!! I think I may have just been persuaded to change my mind and go that route! I really don't need the added zoom as I am buying a new Nikon 70-200mm 2.8, so this 300mm with the 2x would handle my needs for sure!

I haven't priced the Nikon 300mm f4, though, might be out of my price range? Will have to do some checking and see. I'm hoping to stay under $1500 for the lens I buy.

Thanks, Avi - fantastic images and thanks so much for all your help!!!!

Marcy

I couldn't live without my Nikon 300mm f4 lens, it is superb and works out as the best trade-off option for a long lens (for me at least). I use a TC1.7 also from time to time with it to get to 500mm at f6.7

Hi Bill

Thanks for your comments. I recently bought a Nikon 300mm f4 and absolutely love it! I'm still getting used to working with it, but it's already becoming one of my favorite lenses!!!!

Marcy